MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

eNOS4 polymorphism of the endothelial nitric oxide synthase predicts risk for severe diabetic retinopathy

2002· article· en· W1992992503 on OpenAlexaff
Mariano J. Taverna, Agnès Sola, C Guyot-Argenton, Nathalie Pacher, F. Bruzzo, Alain Chevalier, G. Slama, Gérard Reach, J. L. Selam

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalPathogenesisDiabetic retinopathyDiabetes mellitusGastroenterologyGenotypeBody mass indexNitric oxideRetinopathyType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Genetic factors may be involved in the development, and particularly in the severity, of diabetic retinopathy (DR), in addition to chronic hyperglycaemia. Increased nitric oxide generation has been suggested to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of DR. AIMS AND METHODS: To examine whether the eNOS4 is involved in the risk of severe DR, 200 unrelated Caucasian Type 1 diabetic patients of long duration were randomly selected (M/F 103/97, age 44.4 +/- 12.4 years, diabetes duration 27.7 +/- 10.0 years, body mass index 24.3 +/- 3.4 kg/m2, HbA1c 8.6 +/- 1.3%). The eNOS4 polymorphism was analysed by polymerase chain reaction, and DR by retinal angiography and classified as presence (n = 101) or absence (n = 99) of severe (proliferative or pre-proliferative) DR. RESULTS: The genotype distribution of eNOS4b/b (wild-type), eNOS4b/a (heterozygous) and eNOS4a/a (homozygous) was 72%, 24.5% and 3.5%, respectively. Frequency of eNOS4a/a was significantly lower in patients with severe DR (n = 0) when compared with controls (n = 7, odds ratio (OR) = 0 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5-0.74), P = 0.02). eNOS4b/b was more frequent in patients with severe DR (n = 80) when compared with controls (n = 64, OR = 2.1 (95% CI = 1.1-4.12), P = 0.032). Frequency of eNOS4b/a was not different between the study (n = 21) and control groups (n = 28, ns). The allelic frequencies between the study and control groups were different (4b: n = 181 vs. n = 156, respectively, OR = 2.3 (95% CI = 1.27-4.25), P = 0.005; 4a: n = 21 vs. n = 42, respectively, OR = 0.4 (95% CI = 0.24-0.79), P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in Caucasians with Type 1 diabetes that (i) eNOS4a/a is associated with absent or non-severe DR, and (ii) eNOS4b/b is associated with severe DR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetic MedicineSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207